I noted with interest that the "binding gearbox" thread deviated over into some rather strong opinions as to the excellence, or otherwise, of the past and present Society promoted methods of chassis construction.
I do wonder whether it might not be more in the Society's interest if discussion such an important and fast moving technology area in other standards such as Proto:87/Proto-87 would be open to input from non-members.
Andy Reichert
Future history of (flex) chassis construction
-
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
I for one would value Andy's input
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
We can easily move the topic over into the Guest book.
Regards
Regards
-
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
I put my new thread where it seemed logical at the time but I've no objection to it moving, although perhaps I should remind you that Andy and I have previous on the general topic of CSBs.
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
Well then, lets assume you and Andy are both going to behave this time.
Anyone starts a row we can move it back again.
Regards
Anyone starts a row we can move it back again.
Regards
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
The article by Martin on the P4 vs. S4 societies in the SN 200 issue made for interesting reading; I joined both societies in 1979 as I recall, and it seems rather childish to see how adults can behave when emotions start to take over. So, there can be so many dichotomies, is it really necessary to get worked up over different approaches? Personally, I still prefer the Brook-Smith method of track construction, but this doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the absolute realism of chaired track made by those with the skill to make it. Similarly, I have standardized on Kadee couplers set to the UK height. I had a go at making AJ couplers with the new (in 2009) jig, and actually got them to work, but my railway operating habits are a bit rough and tumble for the design. So where I am leading with this is that, just as in the area of politics (Brexit, Trump, etc.) is it really necessary to become polarized so that there is only one right way of doing something? I hope not. The discussions on this forum are almost always positively reinforcing, and whilst we all have opinions and biases, I don’t think we need to look at “history” too much: we are where we are, and on this topic of flex chassis design, if you like it, great, if you like something else, also great. All different facets of this wonderful diamond called P4, IMHO. Sorry for the ramble, not spending enough time modelling…
John Fitton
John Fitton
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
What's "future history"? Is it the same as "alternative facts"?
Martin.
Martin.
40+ years developing Templot. Enjoy using Templot? Join Templot Club. Be a Templot supporter.
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Future history of (flex) chassis construction
As suggested above the "Flexichas appreciation" topic now moved into the Guest book so Andy can contribute to it directly.
https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5273
Regards
https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5273
Regards
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests